Archives for July 2003

Q. I intend to apply to immigrate to Canada via the Quebec application process, which has a different selection system. Once landed, am I limited to residing in Quebec only?

Answer: In principle, if you choose the province of Quebec as a destination, you do have to have an intent to live and work in Quebec. This will be tested at the interview stage.

If it turns out that the intended destination you selected in Canada is not favourable to you upon your landing, then you are free to move to any other location in any province of Canada.

Once in Canada, you have freedom of movement that is guaranteed to you in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

More specifically, as described in Section 6, of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is stated:

Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right: (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

Q. Is it possible to obtain to work permit while a permanent resident application is pending ? is HRDC approval required for all jobs?

Answer: Yes, it is possible to apply for a temporary employment authorization while a permanent resident application is pending. Such an application would not have a negative bearing on the permanent resident case.

There are numerous situations in which it is not necessary to seek Confirmation of a job offer from Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC). These include certain occupations such as Software Development Workers; some situations in which candidates are being transferred within the same company to a Canadian subsidiary or affiliate; candidates subject to international agreements such as NAFTA or GATS; and more.

It is also the case that a candidate who obtains a work permit may also gain as many as 15 additional points in a permanent resident application.

Canada’s immigration department was dealt a serious blow late yesterday afternoon after a Federal Court judge slapped it with an injunction preventing it from rejecting the applications of skilled workers who applied before Jan. 1, 2002, to immigrate to Canada.

The move affects an estimated 100,000 people caught in a backlog when Canada decided to change the selection criteria for prospective immigrants.

“The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is directed to refrain from finally rejecting applications for permanent residence submitted before the 1st of January 2002 by economic class applicants seeking immigrant visas and who have not been provided notice of a decision thereon before the date of this Order.”

Ontario Considers Separate Immigration System

The province of Ontario is developing plans to withdraw from key areas of federal-provincial co-operation, in part by establishing its own income-tax and immigration systems.

A memorandum from the Ontario Premier recommends that the province move to an immigration system identical to Quebec’s. That province, as a result of a 1991 federal-provincial agreement, is responsible for selecting, processing and integrating immigrants to the province, and advises Ottawa each year on how many immigrants it wants to receive.

A court ruling has offered new hope to thousands of would-be New Zealanders anxious to put down roots in their new homeland.

The High Court in Auckland today ruled against the retrospective application of immigration rules changes introduced on 19 November last year.

These changes restricted the issuing of temporary “Job Search” visas for General Skills applicants to those with qualifications in fields covered by the Occupational Shortage List and introduced tough new English language requirements for both General Skills and Business migrants.

The judgement confirmed that ‘the immigration policy effective from 20 November 2002 is invalid for breach of section 13C of the Immigration Act to the extent that it proposes assessment under specific new policies’. The Act requires that applications be assessed under the policy applying at date of lodgement.

“This is a great day for the thousands of future New Zealanders, whose plans for a new life were jeopardised when the immigration goal posts were suddenly changed last November,” says Bill Milnes, Chairman of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment (NZAMI), which took the matter to the High Court.

“The retrospective application of the rules changes introduced a great deal of unexpected anxiety and often hardship into the lives of people who had already commenced the long, complex and expensive process of applying to settle here. Today’s High Court decision will substantially reduce such anxiety and hardship.

“This will also be a great day for all Kiwis who take pride in the fair and just operation of our government and legal systems, who value our international reputation as a country which cares about people’s rights and who appreciate the huge contribution made to our economy by business and skills-based immigration,” he adds.

“It also confirms that government should not make retrospective changes in other areas such as health or education which would be detrimental to the lives of ordinary New Zealanders.”

The associated challenge to the Long-term Business Visa policy was not upheld and it is now confirmed that this category is to be considered as temporary policy and that changes may be made without affecting the integrity of the base policy.

Mr Milnes noted that it took three days of hearing and over a month for Justice Randerson to consider his report. He says, “This identifies the complex nature of immigration policy and the difficulty for government to balance the intent of policy with the rights of people. It would have been a very difficult decision at a time of considerable pressure on the Minister and the Service.”

The NZAMI represents nearly 200 members throughout New Zealand, including immigration and investment consultants, banks, business specialists and financial advisers. The Association seeks consistent, fair, reliable immigration policies of long-term benefit to New Zealand.

Mr Milnes says that the NZAMI is now looking forward to working more closely with the NZIS to help ensure a more balanced and consistent approach to immigration.

“We believe that this case has illustrated the importance of consultation in shaping rules which serve both New Zealand’s interests and the rights of our country’s future citizens,” he says.

Do you qualify for immigration?

There are over 60 options for immigration to Canada. Find out if you qualify with our free assessment!